In Don’t Worry Darling, even a terrific Florence Pugh can’t overcome the film’s simplistic feminist messages
Olivia Wilde's heavily hyped follow-up to Booksmart is a predictable gaslighting thriller with an outmatched Harry Styles
Film Reviews Florence Pugh
At first glance, Olivia Wilde’s elementary gaslighting thriller Don’t Worry Darling is the kind of sci-fi-adjacent movie that warrants a red hot spoiler alert before you read anything about it. That much has been clear since the film’s trailer dropped, introducing audiences to the idyllic, ’50s-style “Victory Project” and its subject, a very Stepford Wives Florence Pugh. Partying with bottomless cocktails in one scene and crushing an empty egg with utter shock in the next, the clip’s growing unease indicated that viewers should prepare for a ride full of secrets and twists.
Although this critic initially fell for the promise of its Pleasantville-meets-The Truman Show premise, that enthusiasm dimmed sharply upon discovering that the film’s feminist lessons are as simplistic as its obvious plot turns. Written by Katie Silverman, Carey Van Dyke and Shane Van Dyke, Don’t Worry Darling might have passed as mildly provocative in the ’90s, before Truman opened the escape door or Neo took the red pill. But Wilde’s film grafts these ideas to a pedestrian, you-go-girl template that sadly feels all too basic. If this counts as a spoiler, blame it on the marketing.
At least Wilde’s visuals are striking to look at. That aggressive ’50s aesthetic (as thematically on-the-nose as it may be), full of faux-vintage furniture pieces, a charming color palette of mustards and pistachio greens, precious television sets and more, is lavish, alarming in its symmetry and spotlessness, thanks to knowingly un-lived-in work from ace production designer Katie Byron. As cloudless mountains surround a cul-de-sac where a row of pristine old-school cars sit, Wilde and her team paint a picture so perfectly manicured that it’s anyone’s guess whether you’re in an affluent Los Angeles suburb or Pleasantville itself. Hastily, an excessive number of heavy-handed needle-drops—from “Comin’ Home Baby” to “The Oogum Boogum Song”—escort us into straight-couple-dominated Victory, where plucky homemaker Alice (a fearlessly terrific Pugh) lives with her husband Jack (Harry Styles, who is no match for Pugh).
Alice kisses her husband goodbye every morning, does chores around the house, slips into a pretty tea-length dress every evening, and sets out a beautiful dinner timed to his return. But who cares about supper, when you can have voracious sex on the table and smash all that pretty china just for kicks? Alice and Jack indulge themselves as much as they fancy without concern for the neighboring couples, who appear to live just as blissfully (and with as many orgasms). There’s Bunny, (Wilde, sporting Rita Hayworth’s sculpted, Old Hollywood waves), Peg (Kate Berlant), and Margaret (KiKi Layne), the latter of whom suffers from a series of mental health episodes. There’s also Violet (Sydney Chandler), a doe-like newcomer learning the ropes who gamely follows suit when the rest chant, “We’re changing the world!” at social gatherings.
Most of the men other than Jack are forgettable, a quality you sense is purposeful. The exception is the devilish, chilly Frank (Chris Pine), founder of the Victory settlement. All of the men work producing “progressive materials” for a happy future free of chaos for Frank at Victory’s secret headquarters, a location that’s out of bounds and supposedly dangerous for women. Curiously, Alice and her counterparts inquire only occasionally about their men’s work, instead, cooking, cleaning, and shopping extravagantly. “There is beauty in control,” Frank’s wife Shelley (a graceful Gemma Chan) lectures during the ballet lessons the rest dutifully attend.
If only Wilde and the writers took Shelley’s advice to heart. Ironically, nothing seems controlled in Don’t Worry Darling, which obeys only inconsistent, “because I said so” rules that feel random: Why do the women sheepishly avoid The Headquarters—until they don’t? What’s outside Victory, and why don’t they ask that question? How long has Victory been there? It’s not until the disappearance of the increasingly rattled Margaret, whom no one takes seriously, that Alice grows skeptical. This is the great Florence Pugh, after all, and even the horrors of Midsommar couldn’t quell her curiosity. But even when she begins to uncover the truth, she becomes uncertain if Jack is trustworthy enough to be rescued if she can get them out of Victory.
Wilde, a capable director with an eye for movement and composition, enlists Darren Aronofsky’s cinematographer, Matthew Libatique, to create some petrifying, colorful visions—coupled with hypnotizing black-and-white burlesque dancing—that are pulled off with heady visual panache. After proving her knack for dynamic pacing on Booksmart, Wilde settles into an organic rhythm here, keeping viewers glued to the action. That’s why it’s an even bigger bummer when an alternate dimension of characters upends the tale, telegraphing an ending detectable from several Victories away.
Perhaps the chief deficit of Don’t Worry Darling isn’t even predictability, but a discernible lack of new ideas of its own. Patriarchy is bad and womanly autonomy is good? Who knew! But without spoiling too much, what’s especially curious is this film’s outdated and desperate approach to both motherhood and heterosexual sex, the latter of which looks phony and seems defined in male terms despite Wilde’s pronounced focus on female pleasure and feminism. Pugh, of course, is terrific, though she’s not just leading the film, she’s carrying it. But even if Don’t Worry Darling’s prettiness is intentionally engineered to make your skin crawl, all that sadly fills your brain when you turn away your gaze is a lingering emptiness—a film with no more weight than, well, a really good trailer.
270 Comments
Well, at least New AV Club is continuing the Old AV Club tradition of hyping some random movie to the hilt only to ultimately give it a C-.
Well, when you write endless, cynical gossip to drive clicks, you inevitably end up contradicting yourself. Hilarious that an article they literally published yesterday said this movie was supposed to be great. At this point I only visit the site to see what new level of embarrassment they’ve reached.
Thanks for reading!
See, this response probably made you feel nice and snarky, but the fact that you care more about us reading than us enjoying what we’re reading is kind of the problem.
Must have hit a nerve.
Agreed. He didn’t even write the article but felt the need to reply. He’s as basic as they come.
“but the fact that you care more about us reading than us enjoying”[Citation needed]
You always were the gullible one, Splendid.
Yeah, not being swayed by your hyperbole makes me the gullible one.
No, but defending one of the most cynical takeovers in modern entertainment business history definitely does.
“No, but defending one of the most cynical takeovers in modern entertainment”LOL, this isn’t just wrong, it’s wrong twice. You know it’s okay to give your bullshit the once over before you hit publish, right?
With such a well-reasoned rebuttal, how could I possibly not? I’m a changed man.
Hey, anytime you want to back anything up with receipts, knock yourself out.Til then, you get what you deserve.
I’ll walk you through it real slow then. I commented saying how the site’s content is written to drive clicks; the new editor replied thanking me for reading, thereby verifying what I said. Still keeping up?Earlier this year, G/O Media mandated that all staff unable to physically move from their Chicago offices to Los Angeles would be laid off after a year under a G/O-imposed editor who never once communicated with his staff (different guy from Todd). If you’ve been on this site long enough, you’d know that their Chicago location and culture were vital to an attitude that didn’t cow to industry norms. It was once the whole identity of the site.I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn’t know this, but even if not, it’s an especially bad look that you’d go on like this about something you don’t understand.
“thereby verifying what I said”LOL, no.We’re done here. Have fun grinding your axe.
Well damn, that’s the last time I ever try with you. How frustratingly obtuse.
I don’t blame the writers so much for anything; at least they’re keeping the site going. I just wish they’d embrace their readership (us) a bit more. A lot more. Maybe they don’t based on mandates from on high. I don’t know. I do think it’s bad form for the editor to snark on a commenter, though. A writer, sure. Snark away. But an editor should be above that. In my opinion.
“I wish they would embrace the readership more”(insert hundreds of insulting comments)Yeah. That’s a readership primed for embrace.
So what’s the solution? This is the Internet, people aren’t going to stop bitching. And bitching about the site is in its DNA, people have always done that here for one reason or another. But let’s say the complaining died down. Do you think writers would comment more, or ungrey people more, or be more involved in general with their reader base? Or do you think their current level of involvement is sufficient? Honestly curious.
I don’t honestly believe we’re owed engagement at all. Frankly I’m a little surprised when it happens. And always have been. I used to be a frequenter of AICN and I didn’t get it much there, either. *Especially* given how awful that commentariat could be. AV Club folks are much classier and generally more clever but there are moments… Particularly aimed at the writers.
Sure, we’re not “owed” anything. It would just be nice if the writers engaged with us more. That’s just my opinion, it’s not like I’ll take my ball and go home if it doesn’t happen.
I get that desire and I won’t say it’s not shared. I do LIKE when site writers engage. I just also don’t see it as particularly rewarding for them when such a huge percentage of the engagement from the readers is critical, more often than not insultingly so. I think it’s good for a writer to develop a thick skin but I don’t think it should be *necessary*.I agree with you in theory. I just don’t see how it works with the level of antagonism from “our” end.
I think you know you’re confusing the chicken for the egg.
I know that antagonizing writers doesn’t engender engagement with them. Unless they’re the type to rise to baiting. Which is unfortunate but that’s on them.People shouldn’t lament non-engagement out of one side of their mouth and call the writers scabs who can’t write above a 6th grade level out of the other.
This is the kind of ridiculous geographical tribalism nonsense that makes anyone from New York hate NYC culture bullshit. What was so fucking “Chicago” about the old site? Were the articles stuffed with peppers and kielbasa? Was the site delivered via the El? Define Chicago culture and describe how that applied to this site’s writing style. “the whole identity of the site” my ass. Like they were an outlier industry outsider. There were as many non-mainstream “industry norms” sites then as mainstream. Bully for AV Club that they were one of a dozen alt cool kids.
It was the fact that they weren’t based in Los Angeles or New York! How hard is that to wrap your head around? Christ.
I’m sorry, is Chicago not a major metropolitan area? Would you cop such an attitude about the site if it covered improv comedy given Chicago’s status in that field? It’s not fucking Cleveland. It’s not fucking Buffalo. It’s not Tulsa or Skokee or Nome. If your complaint is that a pop culture site loses its independence from the entertainment industry by locating itself in NYC or L.A., I have to laugh and ask where you think the advertisers who supported the site were located. Or where interviews with actors got set up. Lotta regional indie talent agencies out there getting the site interviews, you think? Screeners. Screenings. Festival invites.Sorry, but this site hasn’t had indie cred for a looong time. And for what it’s worth? Who fucking cares? Go start a zine if it bothers you so much.
The proof’s in the pudding, don’t know how else to say it. You clearly just want something to get mad at – which I know you think is true of me, but at least acknowledge it in yourself.
That’s not true on either end. I don’t want “something” to get mad at. I DO get mad at criticism of writers, particularly freelancers trying to make a living. Even when the criticism is fair, I have a wealth of sympathy. I’m a writer, I teach writers. (Granted, my area is screenwriting, but still…) It’s a bias that I will cop to. And I don’t think you want “something” to get mad at, either. I think you have a specific axe to grind. One that I understand! But I think you aim that axe at the writers when it should be aimed at the site owners and administrators. It’s not the fault of these newbies that the site fucked over the old guard. And yeah, despite my aggravation with the whole “Chicago matters” notion I won’t deny *at all* that the West Coast move was some shady anti-labor shit.
“What was so fucking “Chicago” about the old site?”If you have to ask, you won’t get it.
Is it the Italian beef sandwiches? The Bear does make them look good.
See, this response probably made you feel nice and snarky, but the fact that you care more about complaining and getting “dunks” on writers than giving feedback is kind of the problem.
Did…did you miss the feedback, champ?Because it was very much there.
I give feedback
Bless you, VP. Bless you.
Giving feedback. You must be very green. I gave feedback for a long time. Now I come by and lament how far things went in the opposite direction. In what way, pray tell, does me disliking the site’s content cause the site to have bad content? I’d love to hear this.
I gave feedback for a long time. Now I come by and lament how far things went in the opposite direction.
What a pathetic thing to admit. You visit a website just to whine about them not catering to your desires. Entitled much?
It’s just a website. Deep breaths. You don’t need to turn this into a reason to feel superior; just go on with your day.
Oh, the hilarious irony in your projection…
Two people think their projections are true of the other; news at 11.
He’s the dude who walks into a joint and immediately outs himself as somebody no business would try and satisfy due to it clearly being a Sisyphean task. What a fucking boor.
I’m the guy who comes back to the neighborhood joint after it’s come under new ownership and lost its culture and gets in a fight with the owner who also happens to be the landlord. At least be precise with your analogies as to my boorishness.
Fine, have the analogy your way, but to the other patrons you actually just insult all the current staff working the floor and while you think you’re getting in a fight with the owner/landlord, you’re actually just yelling and gesticulating wildly at a coatrack – they never set foot in the place. Getting the people you’re actually upset with to acknowledge or hear you may be your obstinate goal, but it’s impossible – hence the Sisyphean part. Or I dunno, maybe you just genuinely think that floor staff who got hired and can’t do their jobs as well as the last floor staff could (according to you) deserve to hear about it every day. But I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt that even you aren’t deliberately that shitty of a person.
I think this is getting a little too complex. Sometimes I come here and read really bad journalism, and on a witheringly rare occasion, I’ll comment my frustration with it, but it’s very rarely aimed at the writers. We all need to take a few deep breaths.
You complain about his snarky response, and yet state previously that you only visit this site to see what new level of embarrassment they’ve reached. Maybe you should put more evaluation into your own life than you do an entertainment website. Here’s a little hint about ALL these sites. OF COURSE they care more about you reading than you enjoying it. Clickbait works, it keeps you coming back, evidently.
That was a significant, bitter exaggeration. This is where I get my entertainment news, sadly enough.And you think I don’t know that? You imagine me stupid enough to think they write clickbait just to spite us?If you’re liable to defend someone for being greedy simply because they’re doing it effectively, perhaps you’re the one due for a life evaluation.
Know any good pop culture sites?
The coverage of the drama and the film itself has been completely consistent with every other entertainment industry publication.
Yet those other industry publications don’t make snide jokes pretending they’re any different. That’s the thrust of my point.
Therein, unfortunately, lies in the problem – in the now-unfounded hope to find a publication that stands out.
Do you guys just pretend to be dumb to bitch or are you really this dumb? Covering the making of and press for a movie and then a specific reviewer disliking the movie is not contradictory lmfao.
We pretend to be dumb to bitch. Anything else?
“At this point I only visit the site to see what new level of embarrassment they’ve reached.”This is such a crap attitude that many people here seem to have. At this point, you whiners are worse than the decline of the site. If you hate here, fine. It’s certainly not what it was. But we know what is by now. Go hang out at Vulture or Collider or The Ringer or any other pop culture site. Endlessly bitching about how the av club sucks now is a bore and I’m sick of reading it in every comment section.
If you can tell me how to reach into my brain and stop it from automatically typing that “AV” into my browser bar, I’m all ears. This site is part of my identity and I’m not going to stop doing drive-bys through the old haunt every now and then just because Jam_Boy_3 doesn’t want to look at some comments.
Maybe try therapy or just some internal fortitude? I realize that this place is special to you and it is to me as well (though I wouldn’t call it part of my “identity.” Get a life, dude), but if you’re hating it so much now that you only visit out of spite, maybe it’s best for you to move on elsewhere. It’ll be okay.
You’re putting spite in my mouth. I come to see the embarrassment, yeah, but it’s more of a rage-against-the-bullshit kind of thing than any bilious obsession. I’m capable of a large and textured life and my visits here are a very tiny part of it that keep me abreast of industry updates and clickbait tactics, which would be the same anywhere else except here I have that history. You’re so quick to judge. Maybe worry about yourself.
This is such a pathetic self-own that you think is dunking on Jam_Boy_3.
There’s a butt in your soup.
“If you can tell me how to reach into my brain and stop it from automatically typing that “AV” into my browser bar, I’m all ears.”I’m right there with you. I’ve been reading this site since the turn of the century and I’ve tried to quit going multiple times. But it’s too ingrained. I was able to quit Slate, but not here. Can’t do it.
According to other commenters, that means you should go to therapy and also fuck you.
But what else will they do with their life as we inch closer to the collapse of society?
If they bother you so much, you’re welcome to take your own advice and go elsewhere, slugger.
If people didn’t hate read Go Media sites the entire structure would shut down in a week.
I mean, how is “supposed to when I was looking into the unknown future, but turned out not to be when I actually watched it” some kind of bizarre conspiracy?
Conspiracy? What? I’m implying the exact opposite, that there’s no mesh between the writers whatsoever. Most newsrooms of this size would have some kind of culture and rapport.
Ah. That wasn’t clear to me from what you had written.
“At this point I only visit the site to see what new level of embarrassment they’ve reached.”Why? What a sad admission.
It’s hyperbole. Go get mad at something worthwhile, like a place you used to love becoming a shell of its former self, or Harry Styles.
Were they hyping it, though? There’s been a lot of breathless coverage of the behind the scenes shenanigans and feuds, but precious little said about the film itself.
I would say everything I know about this film comes from the AVClub, and almost all of what I knew (prior to reading this review) was about the back-stage drama, rather than the content of the film itself.
I saw the trailer for the first time on Saturday (a $3 price point was finally enough to get me to take a chance on Nope) and that was how I learned that it had a whole Stepford Wives/something is Amiss™ vibes, and that Chris Pine was in it.
I saw the trailer a while ago; looked mildly intriguing, but only “get the DVD from Netflix when it comes out” level.
This was my take, and I can’t say I wasn’t expecting it to be a bad movie, after reading about all the behind-the-scenes drama.
well in the photograph you used in this article singer boy is Clark Gable ‘n the fat bitch is Marilyn Monroe’s abusive alcoholic mother don’t know anythin’ bout the movie that might be ya fuckin’ problem though put that on the DVD Blu ray box cover Ms. Wilde I fuckin’ dare ya
I have no problem with a review site biting the hand that clearly spent a fortune on pre-emptive PR with it.
I read a lot of the coverage of this movie here (articles written by different people) leading up to this review, and I’d have hardly called it “hype”.But I guess “writing articles about some random movie to the hilt only to ultimately give it a C-” doesn’t sound quite so damning. Show me on the doll where it said culture sites are obligated to have their reviewers fall in line with the sites other writers’ anticipation or level of content-worthiness.
And random? As noted right in the intro of the review, Olivia Wilde directed Booksmart, which got an A- from Katie Rife, so does it really blow your brain that a movie news website wrote articles about actor changes and comments in the media from the director leading up to the release of her next movie?The line between jaded and obstinately stupid is quite thin, in my humble opinion. I feel like I have to repeat this often, but a website is not a person, and it’s weak minded to treat one as such.
I mean…we’re not “treating a website as a person.”We’re lamenting that the people who run this pop culture website have purged every employee capable of competently covering and discussing pop culture.
I liked the old guard a lot – and the old old guard for that matter – and like many, I feel a sense of loyalty to them, but I take issue with commenters being assholes to the new employees because they have beef with the management. I think people are letting their anger towards how things went down cloud their objectivity for the content. All this “this never happened in the old days” is some serious rose coloured glasses stuff imho. Accusations of payola, editorial/critical conflict of interest and good old baitin’ is as old as the AV Club. People are seeing things that ain’t there and being jerks to the new writers about it. If people don’t like the website, stop coming. The noxious comments directed towards staff are a far bigger turnoff than the supposed “clickbait that never happened in the good old days” imho.
DAWES!!!Anyway, this review is fine. The issue is with the weeks of breathless stories with no editing and frankly embarrassing copy.Like, we’re talking Barsanti/Hughes/Tenreyro levels of self-satisfied incompetence.
That’s different from the original argument, though, and still debatable. Do you actually have a problem with this particular review? Did the AVClub not breathlessly cover the backstage gossip of potential crap, or receive limp accusations of selling out, even in the Sean O’Neal/Nathan Rabin days?
I’m not saying the current upper management of this company is even close to interested in quality content, certainly in respect to copy editing. But quality does still sneak through now and again, and the writing’s not THAT much worse than the site used to be. Really the only thing that is an unquestionably terrible change, at least in my experience, is the trade in focus from community building to simple eyes-on-ads engagement: miss that Frakes and Cookie Monster, that’s for sure.
I still totally understand a few of the complaints (again, mostly on upper management and overall direction instead of individual writing), but I feel like there can be more than a tinge of “Make AVClub Great Again” here: an angry nostalgia for a past that never was.
Ah, this review is fine.I definitely disagree on the quality of the writing, though – leaving aside the Scott and Keith era (I still read them regularly. They’re quite a bit better than even the guys who just got purged), Barsanti and Hughes used to be NOTABLY fucking terrible at writing, relative to the standard of the site.Like, you could tell at a glance whether an article was written by one of them, because they combined a self-satisfied tone with impressively crappy prose.Now, it all blends together. The dreck has become the standard.
You’re crying about nothing and nobody cares.
I mean, you clearly care enough to reply.Barsanti sock puppet, haha?
I mean, you clearly care enough to reply.
I can understand the lament. Tell me, though: Can you recall or point me to evidence that these purged employees were as competent as you claim from the moment they first wrote for the site? Or to be more blunt, why are you (the “we”) giving the new writers shit? What actual basis is there for coming down on them? Other than understandable, but unfairly biased, rose-tinted glasses loyalty to the old writers?
I mean…the new crew are essentially scabs, and most of them have shit prose (as in, wouldn’t pass muster in my 10th grade English class) while engaging in little to no analysis.Maybe the issue is that the holdovers setting the tone are Hughes and Barsanti, who were already the absolute fucking dregs of the latter-day AVC?All that said, this review is quite solid.
I’m being obviously more charitable to the newbies than you but I 100% appreciate you acknowledging this review. I have suspicions, possibly unfair, that some of the shit-talkers in the comments are needlessly antagonistic bad faith actors. That doesn’t appear to be the case here. I’m prone to defensiveness of writers, even if they have faults, even if they are freelancer byproducts of a shady change in admin.
I don’t know that it’s a matter of competence, so much as voice. A lot of the reviews around here now seem to be written by freelancers, like Ms. Laffly (I’m guessing that’s why Todd is the one commenting here, apparently for the first time in his account’s history) who don’t write here with the frequency or consistency the staff reviewers used to. While freelancers are more cost-efficient than union staffers, using them this way means that your site never really develops a consistent voice—as someone who’s freelanced and who works with freelancers, it’s smarter to write freelance content in a way that’s a little more generic because it’s easier to edit that way (you can’t typically count on an editor you only work with sporadically to get to know your stylistic quirks). The freelancers they’ve been using are all experienced and competent, the reviews they write are competent, but that’s what they are—competent more so than distinct. And if it happened that I really enjoyed Ms. Laffly’s review of this movie, can I expect that I’ll hear from her for the next big drama release of the fall? Maybe. Or maybe it’ll be another random freelancer who lists seven different publications on their Twitter bio, with the AV Club being the sixth one listed.This site was built on really strong critical voices. I don’t know that they’ve been very strong MidWestern voices since the Tobias/Phipps era, but the pre-AVC LA writers had unique voices. I think Dowd was on staff for less than two months before he earned his B-.B-. nickname. I didn’t always agree with Katie Rife’s work, but her voice was strong and distinct (and ultimately, much imitated). It was hard to read Ignatiy’s work and think it belonged to anyone else. In eight months since AVC cleared house nothing’s replaced those voices. Some of that is inconsistency, but you have to wonder if it’s also design.
Fair.
I have zero issue with this site giving a C- to Don’t Worry Darling. I really was just amused at the continuity with the old site, wherein they would publish a bunch of interviews with the cast of some random mid-budget movie at the beginning of the week only for the inevitable “C” review to drop by the end of the week. It actually made sense—why would a surefire hit with a massive budget bother spending PR on the AV Club?—but it was always amusing in a “well, this is awkward” sort of way. That’s all I was attempting to convey. Granted, “hyped to the hilt” was a bit of hyperbole, but it alliterated, so what else could I do?Now, I do have issues with the relentless stream of (not even particularly juicy) gossip articles regarding this movie. One or two about the behind the scenes “drama” makes sense, I guess, but a dozen? How many variations of “Florence Pugh might or might not be upset with Olivia Wilde over X” do we need? And obviously I have issues with the direction the site has taken overall, with the balance shifting ever further away from criticism and toward gossipy newswires, and with how what little criticism remains is being tossed to freelancers. But really, honestly, cross my heart, I was only trying to reference something of an in-joke with the old commentariat.
Well I totally own up to having conflated your comment with those made by others who took it as an opportunity to pile on. I admit I’ve been getting frustrated with commenters’ relentless crapping on the new staffs’ work. Maybe some balance in content has shifted but it doesnt seem night and day to me. At any rate, apologies, consider my reply to you really should have been directed at some of the replies to yours.
Eh, you’re not off base. I’ve been ragging on the site a lot lately, and it’s becoming increasingly clear that I should just knock it off and move on.
I’m honestly surprised you haven’t been banished to the Island of Misfit Toys, i.e. the greys. I got exiled a few months ago for making fun of an obscure band a writer liked. You’ve been lucky, considering.For the record, I don’t think people should be banned unless they’re blatantly racist, sexist, etc. A difference of opinion, such as disliking the direction of the site or something a writer likes, should not result in a ban. That stifles what was once a thriving community. My question is, does the staff/administration want a thriving community?
Especially this review, which is well constructed in describing what the movie is lacking without devolving into a plot synopsis or divulging any twistier elements of the story. I feel like I’ve been reading some better material around here lately. What’s really lacking is the multi-part or long-form pieces that used to be such a draw.
I always wondered if the marketing departments at studios pushing those movies learned their lessons after one failed effort to buy positive reviews from the AV Club, or kept coming back for more.
Baloney. If they gave it a good rating, here’s what your post would have been:Everyone else has reviewed it poorly, but I guess after a week of hyping it up they had to give it a good rating!
You put me in the unenviable position of attempting to prove I wouldn’t have done the thing that you hypothetically think I would have. All I can do is tell you is that no, that is not the case, that my intent behind my initial post was genuine, and that if you look at my comment history you’ll see that my ire has been directed almost entirely at the Newswire writers, not the few remaining critics.But yes, I am going to step back from hanging around here. I sense I’m turning into a crank, and that whinging about the good old days isn’t going to bring back the old site and community. My apologies. Have a star in recompense.
There are a number of commenters who are the classic hipster stereotype of “_____ used to be cooler back in the day”. That is the conclusion of every one of their takes. They just need a few minutes after (not exaggerating) EVEY article to explain why that article is more proof.
Can there be any Kinja comment section where you obsessed weirdos aren’t taking weak shots at the writers?
But I’m not taking a weak shot at the writer…this time! I like the review!
Look if you spent all your free time obsessing over pop culture.. of course you’re gonna be endlessly pissed off at people who get paid to obsess over pop culture.I’m a big sports fan. And the same phenomenon exists among a sub-set of sports fans who hate players/coaches/writers… and its utterly transparent they’re just annoyed they don’t get to do sports stuff for their job.
I understand that it probably looks coordinated from where you’re sitting, but this is just what happens when you lose a massive part of your community and they come back every now and then to let off steam about it. It’s testament to the magnitude of what happened.
No, because much of the recent AV Club writing staff kind of has it coming, given they replaced other writers who got screwed over in the movie from Chicago to Los Angeles.
It could be worse.You could be shadowbanned for daring to criticize the writing on the great AV Club.
Hey now! This isn’t Jezebel.
Fuck, they shadowbanned me about a year ago for reasons I still haven’t figured out, and I haven’t left the Greys since. So?FUCK G/O MEDIA.
I’m confused as to what’s the issue here. People hype things all the time and then when it releases, it doesn’t live up to the hype and they’ll let you know.Though I think you are confusing hype with backstage drama
It would seem a stretch to say the AVClub “hyped” the movie. More accurate would be “gossiped about the making of”.
Sit back and let me tell you a story about another website – it was called Ain’t it Cool News and it got all the scoops…
So no movie should be ever hyped because it can end up being mediocre? Shocking.
I dunno about the articles so much, but this overall comment thread (not so much your OP, FWIW, which I took as a bit of harmless snark personally) is a bit of an example of something about the comments and community I’ve noticed for a while now; overall we all seem to be a lot more hostile, belligerent, and at times waspish than I remember us once being. Like, I know that arguments have always happened around here, they happen everywhere online, this place was never perfect and there’s no online utopia. But we also used to have funny memes and really long threads about cool stuff like Community. We used to have a lot more fun. Whereas these days we all seem to be quicker to get into arguments with each other, and when we do everything seems to get more personal and nasty than it has to really quickly.(And I include myself in this as well FWIW; reading back I definitely seem to be a lot more defensive, grumpy and snappy around here than I used to be.)I dunno what’s happened, but it really seems a lot less happy around here than it used to be.
yeah i tapped out (and am ever so slightly tapping back in to respond to this) after the saul finale because i didn’t see the point anymore. it’s the same 10 people complaining about the same 10 things.there just isn’t a community anymore and the people who are still here either have a parasocial relationship with the website itself or are just addicted to reading their own comments on the website.
“it’s the same 10 people complaining about the same 10 things.”Right. And there’s absolutely no reason for it. If they don’t want comments, they should just get rid of them. Zombie Deadspin did it, and that’s still a going concern. If the site is going to refuse to engage regularly with its readers—and leave many potential regular commenters languishing in the greys—just shut the damn thing down. What’s the point of maintaining an ignored/reviled comment system when you don’t have to?
Well, first we felt with the switch to Kinja that the AV Club owners were screwing over the Commentariat…then with the “Move to Los Angeles from Chicago or Get Fired!” from the AV Clbu owners, we realized we weren’t alone, they were screwing the writers over, too!So…anybody still writing for the AV Club or writing for it anew? Is a scab—which is why when I saw G/O Media was looking for writers on Indeed.com I blew right past their want ads, because it’s obvious the bosses don’t care about anything but clicks, including the people who make clicks possible.FUCK G/O MEDIA.
How is not giving an inflated grade a bad thing? That just shows me there’s still a scrap of credibility hanging on here.
So strange for me to see them say it’s heavily hyped then sound disappointed. I don’t remember it being hyped that much. Maybe talked about in a…that looks different or cool…i’ll see it…the same way you say that after every cool trailer before you watch your marvel movie or something…now I get the hot takes that so and so show that comes out and gets praise and is good…labeled later by some random who picks up on it arms folded, asking for it to impress, then states how overhyped something is…people can say something looks cool doesn’t mean were hyping it up to the extent of heavily…If that = heavily hyped then i really get it and will no longer defend shows…everything that has marketing is hyped.
Can we stop hearing all of the boring gossip this film has produced now?
That would mean not displaying any photos of Wilde on the site, and that is just not going to happen.
She’s still not gonna get any Muad’dib.
Is that a dipping sauce?
Mad Libs??
Not for her
Is this an incredibly lame joke? Yes. Yes, it is.
Gesundheit.
Is Florence Pugh’s publicist paying you?
I mean, this review is hardly an outsider in its characterization of both Pugh and the movie itself. The Guardian, USA Today, IndieWire, Deadline, Daily Beast and The Hollywood Reporter all have some version of this same sentiment in their reviews: The movie has serious flaws but Pugh herself is very good in it. So maybe that’s just the truth—that Pugh punches above her weight in an average-to-not-very-good film?
“Florence Pugh is a very good actress” is hardly a take so improbable that her publicist would have to be behind it.
Don’t you know that the Academy of Motion Pictures that gave Pugh an Oscar nomination consists of just her publicist?
“I don’t understand something, so it must be a conspiracy.”
Sure: if I don’t understand something, then it must have taken many people to understand whatever “it” is, because there’s no way I’m just too dim to understand it. That axiom leads inexorably to: many people = conspiracy. That’s just science.
Most people deserve to get their phone took off of ‘em
Let’s see; she is:“Fearlessly terrific”Paired with an actor “who is no match for Pugh”“This is the great Florence Pugh, after all”“Pugh, of course, is terrific”So…
I mean: yes? The general critical consensus is that (as usual and as expected) she is very good in the film and that Harry Styles looks especially bad next to her. And this is exactly the sort of “mental stability pushed to the brink” role that gets called fearless, lol. It would be one thing if everyone else was saying that she sleepwalked her way through the film and the AV Club was alone in its praise, but “actress known for giving great performances gives great performance” should not shock you.
Goes distantly beyond the “Florence Pugh is a very good actress” and sounds like a publicist wrote them, was my point. Are you her publicist? Dating her publicist? Dish!
“She’s good!”
Effusive praise for an actor in a movie review?! What’s next? They like some movies, but not others? What is the rhyme or reason behind these different opinions? Follow the money! Study it out, people!*drops monocle*
Have you seen the movie?In what way did you find her performance lacking?The only way your argument makes even a little sense is if you can make a compelling case that she was bad in this movie.
Florence Pugh is TERRIFIC TERRIFIC TERRIFIC!
Is her publicist an arachnid?
She’s SOME PUGH
She’s RADIENT
Okay, this review on top of not shutting the fuck up about the movie is actually some of the best trolling ever. Bring on the chaos.
Jason Sudeikis wrote this review.
And legally served it to us in public.
I imagine him closing the browser window and just letting out an emphatic “Good.”
Oh thank god, our long international nightmare will soon be over and we can not watch this film disappear in the rear view mirror.
and we can not watch this film disappear in the rear view mirror
So it will stay in your mirror indefinitely?
The movie or series about the making of the movie will be pretty great, though
Sometimes I wonder what our grandchildren will think about the history we’re living through now. Will they see Brad and Angelina as we see Bogart and Bacall? Who are the Gable and Lombard or the Olivier and Vivien Leigh? Because I could see a 2052 miniseries about this nonsense, the same way we had that Bette Davis/Joan Crawford thing a few years ago.
The Pam and Tommy Lee movie already came out.
Well, Harrison Ford is our Gary Cooper, Laura Linney is our Joanne Woodward, and Laura Dern is our Gloria Grahame, and Sandra Bullock is (maybe) our Sally Field. We’re a little low on 2.0s after that, though. So maybe never.
Don’t Sweat It, Sweetcheeks: The Incredible True Saga Of The Controversy Of The Making Of Don’t Worry Baby…I Mean Darling.
I’m glad I’m not the only one who keeps calling it “Don’t Worry Baby.” Such a good opportunity for a early 60s soundtrack.
Great song!
I just hope the miniseries has every episode open with whoever’s playing Pugh knocking on the door of Wilde’s trailer, telling Wilde she needs to do her job and direct, and Wilde shouting “READ THE SIGN, BITCH!” The camera then pans over to the sign, which reads “IF THIS TRAILER’S A-ROCKIN’ DON’T COME A-KNOCKIN’”.
*Sees a sock on the trailer door the next day*“OH GODDAMMIT”
Pugh rolls eyes“Right. Enough of this- HEY, HARRY: DID YOU EVER THINK THAT ANNE WIDDECOMBE USED TO GET NIGEL FARAGE DO HER IN THE ARSE WHILE CATHERINE BLAIKLOCK ATE HER OUT?”Trailer immediately ceases rocking
I glanced over the reviews at Hollywood Reporter, Deadline and Variety and they all seem to have this same theme going on. Looks great. Pugh rocks. But not much there. A couple are a bit easier on Styles.So, at this point, I wonder if Olivia Wilde is just paddling as fast as she can to get attention because she knows she’s ended up with mediocre.Anyway, I hope all involved walk away a little better for the experience. I know I’ve enjoyed the journey and it’s almost done. All I have left to do is read the Wikipedia plot summary and then not see it.
Maybe this gets us a Pugh-Dever team up??
“A couple are a bit easier on Styles.”. Must be Hollywood types. Styles is likely juat as bad an actor as he is a ”singer”. In other words, horrible..
Tv Tropes is my choice for “I’m never going to watch this crap, but want to know everything about it in detail.”
It does seem like a lot of people have decided Wilde is a talented and insightful filmmaker despite her lack of any real track record.
Possible hot take: I’ve had similar feelings about Jordan Peele. Get Out is very good imo. But a little overhyped. Us is… not as good imo. And also overhyped. He’s made SO FEW movies! But he gets talked about so so highly. It doesn’t make much sense to me.
Us was, to me, like the worst of Stephen King’s novels. Incredible setup, squib of an ending. The deflection that it was really about what the film was trying to say about society rather than the story itself is a pretty lame excuse. I’m glad I saw it, but don’t feel the need to watch it again.
Agreed. I like the first 2/3 of the movie, but it quickly turns into a bit of a mess.
If the first 2/3 had been the first 1/3, then I think it could have been better. That would’ve given a lot more time to dig into the reality and the other characters. But it probably also would’ve given the audience more time to ask questions and potentially realize how little sense it all made.
His Twilight Zone was so bad, everyone immediately memory-holed it
Heavily hyped or just surrounded by controversy?
I can’t even work up the energy for a “Why not both?”
WAR IS PEACEFREEDOM IS SLAVERYIGNORANCE IS STRENGTHCONTROVERSY IS HYPE
COBRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!PR Solutions
THE CAPITOL OF IDAHO IS BOISE!
I mean, I get it, I am kind of obsessed with Florence Pugh too. But this site probably should try to find other things to write about also. Are there any new TV shows they could watch and review, for example?
Yup. Wondering if we’re going to get a Rick and Morty review, or if that’s another one under the bus.
My guess is coverage is dead, sadly. The reviewer (Zack Handlen) doesn’t write for the site anymore (last piece was last December) and I bet they aren’t bothering to find someone else to do it given how lax the coverage of any kind of show has gotten at this place over the last several months.
I’d grant them a mulligan for not posting a review on Labor Day Weekend (irony aside) but if they don’t and if they drop R&M coverage, well, idk. Sort of a bummer. Eclipsed by Hot D, no doubt. Maybe its more of a Gizmodo show.
We’re not talking like “Shoot the president to impress Florence” obsessed, are we?
No, like 15% less obsessed than that
Just a light maiming then?
I don’t know if he can take much more than that.
So like a minor state Senator? Or more senior cabinet member?
Depends on the president, also do you think it would really impress her?
No, she strikes me as more of a “win her a giant stuffed parakeet at the fair” kinda gal.
Can we at least throw the stuffed parakeet at the president?!
Sure, presidents have definitely had worse lobbed at them.
Bad Sisters is my pick for best new series of the year. It would be a marvelous series to recap, it’s so full of mystery and well constructed. But nope, we need constant coverage about a gormless heiress who is desperate to be taken seriously as a filmmaker.
The thing is, I don’t see what Wilde in particular brings to the table. With Booksmart we’re talking about a really solid script and some great performances. Maybe you could argue that the performances were guided by Wilde? And as far as I can tell with Don’t Worry Darling, the biggest talking points have been the cinematography and again performances. How much of that is her? To be fair, I don’t know that we can say it ISN’T her. But she’s received some pretty silly breathless praise and I’m just not sure I get what SHE in particular does as a director.I dunno. I agree that it feels a little desperate on her part. But I think it’s impossible to say at this point one way or the other whether she’s particularly good at it.In her defense, she’s no Neil Breen.
The Bear, The Bear, The Bear, Reservation Dogs, The Bear.
Don’t forget What We Do in the Shadows, which seems to make up about half the TV material.
The Bear is fucking awful.
Booksmart wasn’t a good film and you should’ve seen this coming from miles away. Get ready for Spiderwoman next.
I thought her next film was a Kerri Strug biopic starring Thomasin McKenzie.
…Booksmart was pretty fucking great.
Here’s the one thing that bugged me about Booksmart: How do you spend four years getting straight As but you’re totally unaware of everyone else who also got straight As alongside you??? Weren’t you all in the same classes together?
especially if you’re that obsessive about it. you’d know.
Yeah, in high school, I was basically in the same classes as the same core all four years cause straight A kids tend to wind up in the same honors-level courses and teachers.
It’s like someone learned all they know about people getting straight A’s from a couple of lines in the movie Say Anything…
This is the most accurate sentence on the internet today.
THANK YOU!! 👏👏
*reads plot for Booksmart*Ah. Pretty White Girls In High School Have It Hardest Of All. OK, throw it on the pile.
Unwatchable. And movies with rape-scenes aside, I have never walked out of a movie before!
Booksmart is fiiiiine. It’s decent but it’s certainly not exceptional. The friendship between the two girls was sweet but that doll scene was garbage.
“Patriarchy is bad and womanly autonomy is good? Who knew!”Okay, this is the first I am hearing about this. Can anyone cite some examples? This could explain a great deal….
So the film that every media outlet wouldn’t shut up about for the last 12 months is average, at best. Figures. Olivia Wilde deserves this film to suck, she’s the worst.
Get Out for Women. Innit.
You mean there’s an old white guy in terrific Florence Pugh’s head?
Again? So soon after she just got rid of the other old white guy in her head….
See, Wilde has a young white guy in her head. Well, part of a young white guy. That part is his penis.
It turns out Olivia Wilde is the girlboss we deserve but not the one we really need right now.
Where’s Tron Legacy 2?
Cold take: white upper-middle class people who were raised by extremely media-savvy parents, and who have entered filmmaking largely through the portal of “basically being a bankable actor”, don’t often make insightful art of their own.
It makes me think of that point in time where all those adult-oriented animated comedy shows stopped being about weird/silly/specific regional things which felt somehow universal (South Park, American Dad – before you jump on me I’m not making a comment about the quality of the jokes in citing those examples), and instead started being indirectly about the kinds of personalities and neuroses that really don’t exist that far beyond of the entertainment industry. You just aren’t the person with the right perspective for this, y’know?
In a similar vein, I just feel like any movie made by this kind of person about this kind of subject is going to be limited to what they already understand to have been said about it in the broader cultural ‘moment’, and what’s already baked into the script. It’s not inconceivable to me that as a director Olivia Wilde may be able to extract some incisive, novel and well-observed truth, or frame things from a perspective that has yet to be better explored elsewhere but… it’s not exactly likely, to me, either.All that being said, as an aside (perhaps this has already been mentioned): what is the big deal with this movie? The AV Club has been framing it as a reasonably lofty film, but from what I can tell elsewhere, it’s just fairly run-of-the-mill genre fare? Normal Blacklist stuff? So to offer a counterpoint to my own point, maybe it’s unreasonable to demand more than genre fare from Olivia Wilde because maybe I’ve unfairly attributed the motivation to her of wanting to do something more profound than that. I must admit, I was given the impression from the AV Club’s coverage that this film aspires to something more than genre thrills and spills.
Maybe that was my misinterpretation, or maybe it was just the AV Club’s way of detailing salacious showbiz gossip without wanting to look like it was merely detailing salacious showbiz gossip. Maybe the AV Club framed this film as being more ambitious than it is, simply as a means to talk about Shia LaBoeuf.
A little from column A, and a little from column B, maybe? Certainly I wouldn’t have clicked on the review if I felt as though this site hadn’t already implied that this film was significant in some way.
That is the most tldr; I have seen today
Good on you Lucy. Great point, well made.
You’ll have to forgive Lucy. She’s not as evolved as the rest of us.
Maybe if you suffered more, you’d have written something worth slogging through.
Oh so what you’re saying is that some people don’t like to read long things on the internet. Ok I’m with you now. Thanks for letting me know.
Shhh. You’re distracting him from watching an 18-year-old girl in yoga pants and a tight white t-shirt from telling him her vital and important take on the Russia-Ukraine war in a 43-second tiktok.
The funniest part of your reply is that I’m almost certainly NOT distracting him from that, haha
Crazy how someone would get online just to be like “I can’t read”.
Well said. There’s a thing in the literature world called “autofiction”, which are essentially autobiographies with a thin veneer of fiction laid over them to avoid any outright calls of narcissism…as well as present themselve- sorry, the totally fictional protagonist of their totally fictional novel in the best possible light. You can get good versions of autofiction – Capote’s In Cold Blood is one. But Capote went out and did something interesting, lived an interesting life. It was just about Capote feeling out the personal insecurities of his day-to-day life in excruciating detail because They Are Super Important And Interesting, Actually.The implication we’re meant to take away from this is that this autofiction is somehow intrinsically worthy and important – otherwise it wouldn’t get published, no? The reality, more often than not, is that these authors are simply people who are best positioned to get their works published regardless of merit. They’re often upper-middle-to-upper-class white women, who are privileged enough to be able to navigate the world of writing. They can hang about at uni and get their Masters and then their Phd. They’re not required to find immediate work, either because of financial insecurity or because of social pressure to “contribute practically” to society. Often they’re physically attractive, which allows them to be listened to (especially by older men!), and find someone to support them. The family and social circles they were born into often mean they come with ready-made connections or influence into the world of publishing. They’re not used to hearing the word “no”, and are unlikely to hear it. No one’s ever told them “God, that story’s boring” – maybe if you tongue their arsehole enough, they’ll use their privilege to grant you a favour. Wilde’s bio reads like an entry of Burke’s Peerage blended with a Cosmo cover story – hell, her ancestors are all British aristocracy, who had far-flung Imperial postings in the exotic corners of the Empire like Peking, Cairo, Bombay, and, er, Tasmania. Most of her family – living and dead – has goddamn Wikipedia entries, notably in the arts and media. Christopher Hitchens was her babysitter.And, lo, we’ve seen the outcome of this: a rich pretty girl’s take on feminism – a take so cold it could only be possibly made to work by setting it in the gendered nightmare of a 1950s suburban cul de sac. It’s not so much an insightful take as, at best, slummin’ it (that great and grand traditional hobby of the aristocracy), and at worst, some sort of appropriation (the modern version of the same hobby). Maybe that was my misinterpretation, or maybe it was just the AV Club’s way of detailing salacious showbiz gossip without wanting to look like it was merely detailing salacious showbiz gossip. Maybe the AV Club framed this film as being more ambitious than it is, simply as a means to talk about Shia LaBoeuf.That was my take; none of the coverage – well, let’s be blunt, the forced viral marketing – was insightful: it was simply bog-standard celeb gossip, such as would be discussed under the hairdryers at the local salon, gussied up as deeper socio-political commentary. And, in that, this movie and its marketing has kinda been entirely appropriate…but purely by accident.
I think this movie was anticipated as a potential proving ground for several of the people involved, including Wilde, Pugh and Styles. Pine’s set, I don’t need him to show off for me. Meanwhile it sounds like Wilde and Styles both come up short while Pugh demonstrated she’s fully emerged as a real talent who’s worth watching going forward. I’m not sure how excited audiences will now be for Wilde’s next film, and Styles will probably go back to music as his day job while occasionally turning up in films. Add the making-of drama with the Beef and I’m not surprised a mid-budget adult drama got this kind of attention.
Pugh is on an upward trajectory into/onto the “A List” (I mean, she’s there. She’s going to headline Marvel’s Thunderbolts). Two months ago this movie might have generated Oscar talk for her performance, but now: “Oh no! A stumble!” Then: “Oh, she’ll be fine. Can you believe all this drama she has to put up with?” Flo’s our reader and audience surrogate for the moment, everyone else around her is a nutjob. Including the TMZedia. Since 1/3 of Hulu has become E! look for this whole mess as a mini-series on Hulu in say… two years?
Yeah, it’s bizarre that they’re trying to push this barrow that somehow Pugh’s career is dooooooooooooooooomed after this. She’s talented, she’s young (and no doubt Wilde considers her a threat because of that), while Wilde is…basically as Fallon said: someone nominally attractive and connected enough to get her way greased into acting; Pugh is an actual thespian. Pugh, I think, will survive this. Wilde probably will too, but it’s not like she really needs to, and not in the same way as Pugh. I’m sure Wilde’ll be able to pull some strings to get another movie made, maybe end up on some mid-rate TV show for a few seasons. Pugh’s got an Oscar and BAFTA nom, and a bunch of awards from places Cannes. Wilde’s got The MTV Movie Awards For On-Fleekest Female Performance or some shit.
“what is the big deal with this movie?” Well, it’s half of the Warner Brothers release schedule for the rest of the year.
I have to agree; I thought it was framed as a very arthouse-y, indie-by-way-of WB film that American audiences just weren’t going to be able to handle (!!!). Could have been my interpretation of the coverage as well. It’s also possible that Olivia Wilde is so utterly pretentious that she tries to frame everything she does as loftier than your average fare. But that’s just another interpretation, I guess.
It would help if contemporary writers and actors had experienced any sort of meaningful lives outside the entertainment industry. Actors from the golden age of Hollywood had been truck drivers, fought in WW2, been secretaries, worked in journalism, worked on ranches, been carnival performers — all sorts of stuff. Then they moved to NYC, took classes, and started on Broadway. Now, it feels like it has switched to people who have never done anything but show business, from their youth up.
I think the reason this movie is getting so much hype is strictly because of the controversy of Shia, Wilde and Styles.
My guess is its a marketing attempt to try and make this movie sound like something “important” as a feminist statement, and now that critics have actually seen it, they are realizing the movie doesnt justify the hype.
I find myself once again more interested in the cinematographer than the director here. I think I’m going to find one I like and just watch all the movies they’ve worked on and see what I think. Same with editors, maybe. Could be an interesting viewing project.
Glad to see I’m not the only one who was like, “Matthew Libatique, you say?” I wonder if they trauma bonded over working on Cowboys and Aliens.
I think you mean “awesome bonded,” if my experience of the film was any indication! It had cowboys. It had aliens. What more do you people want?
What more do you people want? To not be bored to death, mainly.
Fair. I was just so in love with the concept that I probably didn’t even notice what was onscreen.
I thought the cinematography was quite good and was reminded of Requiem for a Dream at various points in the movie. And then I saw Libatique’s name in the credits. Dude is good.
How can you not? Libatique has been extraordinary for a couple decades now.
Perhaps the chief deficit of Don’t Worry Darling isn’t even predictability, but a discernible lack of new ideas of its own. Patriarchy is bad and womanly autonomy is good? Who knew! Given the current state of abortion rights in US, this is perhaps a lesson that could use some reinforcing. At this point, I’d say we could even stand something histrionic and overblown (akin to something like Reefer Madness) to really drive the point home.
Eh, maybe – but it just seems like this is an unnecessary remake of The Stepford Wives with a very slight spin on it.
The problem with generic morals is… everyone thinks they’re the good guy.Simplistic messages that don’t challenge viewers tend to reinforce… I’m the good guy. Because we all think we’re good people. And simplistic messages tend to be… good people do X and bad people do Y.
If I think I’m a good person, I walk away from the movie thinking I don’t support racism or I believe in the equality of women. Even if I don’t.
I don’t know how much more the lesson can be pushed than Handmaid’s Tale. I mean… I suppose quantity over quality is the idea? Even then, I just don’t think “message movies/TV shows” make much of a difference to the kind of fundamentalists that are fucking us over. And really consider what stats tell us. The majority of the U.S. population is either pro-choice or “agnostic” on the issue. Anti-abortion policy is deeply unpopular. It just so happens to be a big deal for conservatives in positions of power to change public policy. I have my doubts that any of the shitbag conservative Justices could be swayed by the hundredth variation on The Stepford Wives. If they even deigned to see it! (Though Thomas probably will since he loves on-screen fuckin.)
It’s pretty astonishing how badly years of pandering the the most strident part of the pro-life set is now blowing up in Republicans’ faces. They passed these springing bans etc. to suck up, safe in the assumption that Roe would never be overturned. Literally nothing has improved in any other issue for Democrats since the decision but they’ve had a massive jump in the polls. Even a majority of Republicans want abortion available up to a certain point in the pregnancy.
I agree that it is a remake of The Stepford Wives but after Trump and our terrifying Supreme Court and the terrifying Fox “news” I find this story more resonant than ever. When Stepford wives was made in the 1970’s they were reacting to social revolution that had only happened in the 1960’s but now with cable “news” and the internet, 50 or so years later and the misogyny of about half of the people in this country is even more horrifying. Just like The Handmaid’s Tale feels even more real now than it did when it was written in the 1980’s, especially since the Dobbs decision, the fact that all the republicans in this country are even closer to forcing us all back to the 1950’s makes this story truly terrifying to me because it is what is actually happening now. Men really do spend so much time on the internet getting worked up about how feminism has ruined their lives, I know: my own relatives are exactly like that and treat me like a terrorist for just believing I deserve to be treated as an equal. This film review is offensive on so many levels – I totally thought it must have been written by a dude! What fucking country does Tomris live in? It is a horror movie that horrifies because of how real the problem still is just like Get Out.
Can we please the heck add runtimes and availability details back to the info boxes?!
No, and since people keep asking, now we’re taking away the genres, ratings, and vowels. Dl wth t.
There aren’t vowels in the ratings anyway.
They already dropped Harry Styles from the cast list even though he’s a main character and in the header photo.
This just in:Movie stinks like Pugh.Sorry, punctuation.Movie stinks, like Pugh.
New Pugh Movie Leaves Critics And Audiences Saying “P.U.”!
Well, all right, but what I really wanted to know was whether or not Florence Pugh was any good in it.
I find Florence Pugh to be an excellent act-eur, if you will, and strikingly attractive to boot. That is all.
Did Styles spit on Chris Pine??????
Chris Pine has just walked into the Chris meeting, popped a beer and said, “OK, Pratt. time for you to say something stupid and churchy again. I need a break. You will not believe what that asshole Harry Styles did…”Pratt: “No way. I’m always the one. Make Evans do it.”Evans: “I sent a dick pic and highlighted the difference between how men and women are treated. I showed my dick. Hemsworth is never in trouble. Time for him.”Hemsworth: “What? No. I’m undefeated. I’m the good one. It’s my thing”Chris Sarandon, Christopher Walken, and the ghosts of Christopher Plummer and Christopher Lee appear:“No, Hemsworth. You must do it for all Chrises. It is your time”“NO! I’m not”Chris Rock: “You know… GI Jane wasn’t the reference I should have used. She looked like Powder. Black Powder!”Hemsworth: “THERE IT IS!”
Powder would’ve had the same problem, imo. It’s such a fucking OLD reference!I thought it was a bad joke told badly and a guy who made a documentary about black women’s hair should’ve known better. But honestly my *core* complaint was that GI Jane as a reference is dated as fuck.
“At least Wilde’s the cinematographer and set designer’s visuals are striking to look at. That aggressive ’50s aesthetic…”
None of us are ever likely to know what happened between OW and Pugh, OW and LeBouff, OW and Sudeikis, or OW and Pine & Styles.We DO know what we usually assume took place when a male director gets a divorce during a film production and walks away with a new lover with a chest tattoo.And we DO know that despite thair dedication to moral degradation TMZ is a fucking windsock for blood in the water and they are coming for her so she stepped on the WRONG toes and shit the money bed.
Huh it seems even women can write and direct shitty feminist films. At least you have representation now so you make your own shitty shows.
A game Florence Pugh can’t buoy a tepid Don’t Worry Darling
“and crushing an empty egg with utter shock in the next”I keep reading this and still not understanding it… crushing an egg with shock?
I agree with the dum dums in the comments. Every single time this movie and the (extremely tepid and boring) drama surrounding it comes up on Kinja, there are tons of comments. This article alone has 168 comments. And 99.99% of them are people bitching about how these articles are just clickbait and everyone is tired of it and no one wants to hear about it.Then stop fucking clicking, reading, and commenting on articles about it, you colossal dipshits.Ya, it’s a real mystery that they keep writing articles about it when you can’t help engaging with it in droves.
My biggest problem with Midsommar was that it contained no horrors. If you can’t predict almost every frame of that movie, I wonder if you’ve seen horror movies. I think you can argue dread. The dread of inevitability. I suppose that’s a *kind* of horror. But… Meh. Pugh is good in it, I just don’t find the movie itself terribly effective.
They’re all tripping balls for the last act of the movie! How are we supposed to still care about the characters when their agency is totally gone?
I also felt like there was some really rough contrivance in the group getting killed. Like…. The plot *relies* on everyone being a selfish shitty Ugly American (or Tourist anyway, since I believe at least one of them was a Brit). It feels like the movie has a conclusion it wants to reach and works backward to weakly justify that conclusion. I love LOVE Hereditary so much, I was deeply disappointed by Midsommar.
I love Hereditary too. That looked like a classy but rote “possessed kid” movie, and it turned out to be batshit insane.Then Midsommar looked like a regular “doofuses stumble on to a murder cult” movie, and it turned out to be exactly what it said on the tin.I mean, yeah, the cult ironically solved Florence Pugh’s spiritual malaise or whatever, but that’s no big whoop. “Main character joins the cult actually” is basically one of the two endings these movies ever have!He was supposed to “wow” us again 🙁
‘Heavily Hyped’….Yeah well by you guys I guess .
Why doesn’t this have a Spoiler Space link, then? Has that feature been officially sunsetted?Oh, for the AVClub of ten years ago.
Also, bring back Tasha Robinson. Best writer the site ever had.
Lighten up Francis. I enjoyed both the story and visuals of the film.
Movie was a lot of fun. B+
Alternate headline: Florence and The Machine